Mizuno reports increased excess heat

The only good thing is that the crucial new element that Mizuno used (introduced) for the high performance is not in the patent! And for those skilled in the art & physics this means that an important step for high performance LENR is public and free to use for everybody!

New stuff might be in pending patent applications. It takes 18 months before they become visible.

(a) The R20 COP is too high for this system to be stable. sure, it could be stable, but not with claimed power out vs temperature. Chances of instability are very high and this would have been noted by M.

That is incorrect. You have a vivid imagination. Dreaming up imaginary problems does not make them real.

I have shown that all of the issues you documented are mistaken. For example, you claim the air speed might be measured incorrectly. I gave several reasons showing why that is not the case. You ignored these reasons, as you always do. You will go on claiming that you "documented" them when all you did was make mistakes and then refuse to admit you are wrong.

I do not know about patents, but Mizuno assured me he held back nothing in this paper. Every detail he knows of is included. As I said before, it may be he is doing things without realizing it, the way a good cook sometimes does, but every step that he is consciously aware of doing is included.

As of the date it was published, this was a "full disclosure" of the "best mode," to put it in patent jargon. See:

"The specification. . . shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention."

First, let me make it 100% clear I am not upset by your speculation about lying or cheating. That is always a possibility. It should always be considered. But look at our situation. There is no motive for us to lie or cheat. We just gave this away with no strings attached. I published additional Q&A. What benefit would accrue to us if we were lying or cheating? No one would be able to replicate, and it would be forgotten in a few months. There is not a dollar to be made or any status to be gained by lying.

If I had posted a message saying, "send me $1000 for a copy of this reactor!" you might suspect we were in it for the money. Whereas in fact, Mizuno may not be able to respond for requests for materials at cost, because he is very busy for personal reasons. I am scrambling around trying to find a U.S. supplier of Nickel-200, 180 mesh. (I think I found one and will report back if I have.)

You say, "I think they probably have made some kind of mistake." I don't think so. I have seen many, many mistakes. I have made many myself! They do not look like this. I cannot imagine what error it might be. But that's the thing about errors: you cannot imagine them, so that's why you make them.

Seven_of_twenty has repeatedly emphasized the large power of this experiment. I countered by saying the signal to noise ratio of previous experiments was better, even though power was 0.3 W, 0.5 W, or 5 W (Miles and McKubre). Their instruments were so much better, they could measure this low power with more confidence than Mizuno measures 250 W. That's true from a strictly scientific or technical point of view. However, seven_of_twenty does make a valid point here. It is true that the higher the power, the less likely a mistake becomes. High power automatically increases the signal to noise ratio. (Up to a certain point it does, until you have to move to a different calorimeter, which may have a whole new set of problems.)

In the paper, I made a point similar to what seven_of_twenty says, where I wrote on p. 5:

"1. A comparison of the outlet minus inlet temperatures with a 50 W calibration versus the 50 W excess heat test (Fig. 5). This is the raw temperature data from the calorimeter. This is the simplest first approximation. Assuming only that input power and the air flow rate is the same in both tests, this shows that much more heat is produced in the excess heat test. The temperature difference is 10°C higher with excess heat."

It is dead simple to confirm a 10°C temperature difference. Mizuno, or I, or anyone with experience would do that instantly, repeatedly, with the thermometers and the Omega handheld thermocouples lying around the lab. We would do it several times a day. The inlet (ambient) temperature is right there on the thermometers hanging on the wall. You can measure the outlet temperature any time by holding a thermometer in the wind coming out of the calorimeter. So I do not think there is any way that measurement is wrong. I do not think the blower could be running much slower than it does during calibration. That fact would stand out boldly on the screen. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously, in the data that scrolls down from the HP gadget. THH insists the fan may be running much slower. I think he said 20%. Or was it 50%? Both numbers are impossible. It wouldn't slow down that much; the motor would burn, and the fan would stop dead. The input power has to go somewhere, either into mechanical movement or waste heat. That much waste heat will burn the motor. However, for the sake of argument, even if we assume the fan slowed down by 50%, there would still be massive excess heat, and that excess heat continues for weeks.

As long as the fan is running at about the same speed it was during calibration, it wouldn't matter if the actual wind speed is much slower than we think. You can do a comparison without knowing the actual wind speed, as long as you are sure it has not changed. The temperature difference and the wind speed are all you need to confirm there is excess heat. In my opinion, there is no chance that either (or both together) are wrong by such a large factor 50 W looks like 300 W. That is out of the question.

The results reported at ICCF21 were much closer to the margin. The chance of an error was much higher. In that sense, seven_of_twenty is correct that higher power matters, as I should have acknowledged previously.

Display More

Jed, I wasn't speculating about lying or cheating. I was responding to seven_of_twenty who thought I was implying that! I have no reason at all to doubt your sincerity or Mizuno's. What's great about this current research, in contrast to several similar high output claims of the past, is openness and sincerity. We'll find out more when there are replications (or failed) as it should be.

There are lots of things Mizuno could do to learn more about what's going on. If he were to take out half of the the fuel, what would you expect? Can he remove the same fuel and reinstall it and have it work? If so, his actual working fuel could be divided and sent to others for replication.

Mizuno assured me he held back nothing in this paper. Every detail he knows of is included. As I said before, it may be he is doing things without realizing it, the way a good cook sometimes does, but every step that he is consciously aware of doing is included.

There is no discussion about all details being in the paper you released on 18th June as far as I am concerned.

There is still the possibility that Mizuno filed a new application before the date of 18th of June 2019, covering the latest details. I would not blame him at all.

Let's say he filed a new patent application on 1st of May 2019. In that case it will only be published (and visible) after December 1st 2020.

He is free to communicate about any new insight (as filed on 1st of May 2019) after the date of filing, e.g. by means of a public paper. That would still protect his invention.

There is one exception: In case a provisional patent application filing was done at the USPTO the inventor can not publish any details within a time frame of 12 months. Given the fact that Mizuno filed patent applications earlier on (without provisional patent application filing), I presume that if he filed a new patent application, he did so without filing a provisional patent application. Time will tell.

For replicators it is no problem at all when Mizuno has filed the latest details in a new patent application.

As long as no business will be made out of it, that would require a license in case the patent application gets granted.

Imagine wrapping mesh from a continuous roll around the sheath heater completely filling the reactor. Further imagine the sheath stretches the reactor's full length. Finally use a 50 millimeter OD pipe.

I wonder what that might do.

I see a burnishing machine. Fasten the mesh ends together forming a belt. Run the belt under pressure past a Palladium wiper stretching the full belt width.

The only good thing is that the crucial new element that Mizuno used (introduced) for the high performance is not in the patent! And for those skilled in the art & physics this means that an important step for high performance LENR is public and free to use for everybody!

Imagine wrapping mesh from a continuous roll around the sheath heater completely filling the reactor. Further imagine the sheath stretches the reactor's full length. Finally use a 50 millimeter OD pipe.

I wonder what that might do.

I see a burnishing machine. Fasten the mesh ends together forming a belt. Run the belt under pressure past a Palladium wiper stretching the full belt width.

Hmmm.

Display More

I can imagine that burnishing machine too, and also I totally get your idea of creating a roll of mesh to fill the entire cavity of the reactor, and it sounds great, but I also think that replication should be as close as possible as what worked for Dr. Mizuno. After that, I think your idea would create a very powerfull reactor, but first is needed to show that it can work outside his lab and everywhere in the world.

I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

I think is more or less agreed that the breakthoughs that allowed Mizuno's success are: Heater inside reactor and in contact with the mesh, vigorous burnishing of palladium in the mesh for adding palladium and also removing oxides on the surface of the mesh, and also the use of very low pressure, and finally, the use of deuterium at those low pressures.

I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

No doubt there can be a
number of replication trials being made, but there are a number of
ways to mess up the experiments, even for a skilled experimenter.
Making the reactor work is just part of it. The calorimetry is
essential. The calorimetric data from a good replication should be
easy reading even for skeptic engineers and physicists without
calorimetric experience.

Just noted in
Mizunos and Rothwells paper: “In
previous experiments we used water-flow calorimeters with cooling
coils up against the reactor walls, or cooling coils WITH INSULATION
between the coil and the wall. Both types removed heat too quickly,
reducing or eliminating the reaction.”

This raises
questions.

If genuine (we don't
know for shore yet), the high measured COP should have nothing to do
with which calorimetric method that is used. The triggering energy
comes from the central heater so what happens at the outside of the
reactor should not have much effect on the output (if any), when the
reactor wall temperature is kept within the operational limits.

COP at 230 C is
about the same as at 380 C (1.4 – 1.5), according to table 1. Thus,
the reaction does NOT seem to be very sensitive to the reactor wall
temperature, which makes me wonder about the quote.

We can estimate the
heat loss from the reactor, based on the data, to 1 W/K.

An insulation
example: A 10 mm thick insulation eliminating convection losses
should have a heat loss coefficient about 5 W/K,m2, when the cooling
coils are in contact with its surface (and lower if they are not).
This is smaller than for the free standing reactor. The temperature
should be higher even with such a thin insulation plus cooling coils!

Using only 5 mm
thick insulation plus a 5 mm thick air gap to the cooling coil should
provide a similar heat loss level as for the free standing unit.

Using a slightly
wider low-cost coil and cm-thick insulation seems much simpler than
abandoning the water calorimetry that Mizuno had been using and
build a completely new air flow system.

Using insulation
also would increase the reactor wall temperature that should be beneficial to
the reaction, or would it not?

Perhaps Mizuno had
other reasons to abandon water calorimetry and NOT use insulation,
than disclosed in the paper? Would be interesting to know.

(a) The R20 COP is too high for this system to be stable. sure, it could be stable, but not with claimed power out vs temperature. Chances of instability are very high and this would have been noted by M.

This is incorrect. There is no sign of instability.

First, you can see this is anomalous heat. Look at the first 10 minutes of Fig. 6, and the stray points in Fig. 8. Resistance heating does not act that way.

Now look at the increase in Fig. 6 from minute 10 to hour 1:40. It is sedate. When resistance heating is turned up, the reactor heats about as quickly as a toaster oven. It takes a while for that increase to reach the flow calorimetry, but it does not take an hour and 30 minutes. This gradual increase is from anomalous heat. The anomalous heat increases exponentially in response to temperature, but "exponential" does not mean rapid, or out of control, or unstable. It just means the heat goes to a proportionally higher level in response to higher temperatures.

The reaction must be self-heating to some extent. 50 W of resistance heating alone would never begin to reach these temperatures. In Fig. 6, around 1:40 the heat leaving the reactor balances the heat being produced in the reactor, so the reaction stops going to higher levels. It stabilizes. Again, self-heating does not mean going out of control. Burning wood must self heat or the reaction stops, but that does not mean a wood fire goes out of control, or that it never reaches a terminal temperature and a stable, terminal heat production level.

Let me address THH's other points. I think these are all of them --

The fan might be running slower. This is impossible. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously. It does not change. THH claims the fan may be running much slower. I think he said 20% or 50%. Both numbers are impossible. The input electric power has to go somewhere, either into mechanical movement or waste heat. That much waste heat will burn the motor. However, for the sake of argument, even if we assume the fan slowed down by 50%, there would still be massive excess heat.

THH claims the actual air speed might be much slower than we think, both during calibration and during active runs. This is incorrect because the Reynolds number is 18,000, and any number above 2,300 will ensure the wind speed is constant across the face of the outlet, as shown in Fig. 4. It is also incorrect because the calibrations produce a reasonably close balance, and furthermore the heat losses from the calorimeter chamber that we estimated from input power minus output captured in the air flow (Fig. 2) are confirmed by other methods. You can confirm them yourself with the numbers in the ICCF21 paper, p. 8. However, for the sake of argument, even if the air flow rate is far lower than we think, as long as the fan is running at about the same speed it was during calibration, there would still be excess heat. Not as much as we think, but there would still be some.

THH claims that the hydrogen in the cell might be burning, and this could produce the anomalous heat. This is incorrect because there is no oxygen in the cell, and because the fuel would only last a few seconds, whereas the reaction has continued for more than 100 days.

It might be that it is not the temperature of the mesh but the temperature gradient through it. That is a flux of phonons from the heater element through the material into the pipe. There have been experiments that require a thermal gradient to work or a flow of D's through the material.

If genuine (we don'tknow for shore yet), the high measured COP should have nothing to dowith which calorimetric method that is used.

That is wrong. The calorimeter is an integral part of the experiment. It always affects the experiment, as described in the paper. This has been seen in many other cold fusion experiments, and conventional chemistry experiments.

That is wrong. The calorimeter is an integral part of the experiment. It always affects the experiment, as described in the paper. This has been seen in many other cold fusion experiments, and conventional chemistry experiments.

The effect of heat removal from water filled tubes is much greater than this difference.

If he had other reasons we would have disclosed them.

Is it correct, according to you, that there is another parameter than the reactor wall temperature that is important when water cooling hampers the reaction?